Papers of John Adams, volume 20
th.1790.
This will be handed to you by Mr;
Francis Bailey, printer of the Freemans Journal in this city. I esteem him as an
intelligent, ingenious & honest man. He has lately invented a simple method of
making ornaments, devices and even types for securities, certificates and other public
papers, which cannot possibly be counterfeited.1
As soon as his invention shall be made known, it can be used by any printer, and no patent could secure him much benefit from it: He therefore hopes for employment from Congress in the line of his business so long as he may deserve it, as the only reward for his discovery. With this view he goes to New-York, and requests me to do him the honor of introducing him to you, and solliciting your patronage. Your countenance and recommendation will oblidge an industrious & worthy character.
Be pleased to make my compliments acceptable to Mrs; Adams, Colo: & Mrs; Smith,
and permit me to subscribe myself, what with great sincerity I am, / Sir, Your most
obedient humble servant
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams Esquire.—”
Francis Bailey (ca. 1735–1815), former printer for the
Continental Congress and the state of Pennsylvania, had published the Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal since 1781. Bailey developed a form of
printing type that he claimed could not be counterfeited “by the most ingenious
Artists in sculpture, or by any other means.” Bailey petitioned both houses of
Congress for the exclusive use of his invention, garnering prominent supporters like
Pennsylvania senator Robert Morris and George Duffield, pastor of Philadelphia’s Third
Presbyterian Church. On 20 Jan. 1790 Duffield wrote to JA (Adams Papers), recommending Bailey as
“a man of great integrity; & I think, I may safely say, universally esteemed by
his Acquaintance for his honesty & uprightness.”
From 2 to 26 Feb., a House of Representatives committee
considered Bailey’s petition and passed a bill in support of it. It was sent to the
Senate on 2 March, where it foundered, likely because of Alexander Hamilton’s negative
report on the efficacy of Bailey’s invention. On 4 March the Senate opted to postpone
discussion of Bailey’s request until a “bill to promote the progress of useful arts
shall be taken into consideration,” for which see Richard Cranch’s 22 Jan. letter, and note 1, below
(Washington, Papers, Presidential Series
, 5:89–90;
AFC
, 1:216; Hamilton, Papers
, 6:277–278;
Annals of Congress
, 1st Cong., 1st sess., p.
988).